Search results

I told you I'd answer them when I had time. I'm working at the moment. However, here again, you ask questions but refuse to answer any. I gave you a bunch of questions specifically directed at the parable. Will you answer them? I'll answer your main question now though. Nothing of Abraham or...

Well, if you reject the OT you have nothing. The Christian's hope comes from the OT. The apostles quote extensively from the OT. Jesus quoted extensively from the OT. So, it would seem that there is much there that they thought was really important. Now, had you said, the new covenant takes...

It's funny, you want me to answer these questions when you've ignored all mine. But, I'll gladly answer the questions later when I have time.

Look when you can form an actual argument come back and talk. There's no point in addressing your contious deflections any longer.

Hiw old are you? Your profile says 72 but I seriously have to question that. I feel like I'm addressing an adolescent.

What you have to prove is that your understanding of what Jesus said is true. However, your understanding of it is correct.

No, I didn't. As I said, the parable uses Hades, not Gehenna. Jesus spoke if the wicked burning I Gehenna. Please, just the most basic of studies. You believe your beliefs

It's really a shame about your attitude. It'll keep you from ever coming to the truth. If you actually researched it you'd see that NOWHERE in Scripture are the wicked ever said to be burning in Hades. This passage in the parable is the ONLY passage in all of Scripture that has anyone suffering...

I already have several times. It's you who hasn't proven your claim. Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables and without a parable He did not speak to them.

Do you really not understand or are you just playing games? A parable is a story. The elements of it represent something else.

I didnt reject Luke 16. I simply said your understanding of it is wrong. Your premise is wrong. One part of God word doesn't take precedence over another. That you're making that statement shows your theology is a skew and you can't reconcile the Scriptures.

Again you go to a straw man. I gave you proof. Jesus said He didn't speak to them except in parables.

As with all parable, they represent something.

"Luke 16 is not a parable no matter how much you don't like it". You're opinion is not evidence.

Unlike you I don't reject any Scripture. When I find what appears to be a conflict I investigate and find a way to reconcile it. I don't claim it is some, 'obscure Old Testament passage'. I don't say the New Testament take precedence over the Old. That's just a way to ignore what doesn't fit...

You keep saying that Yet you've given no proof whatsoever and have failed to address the proof that it is. I guess you're the thread troll?

Yes, His parables are truth. The meaning of them is truth. However, the meaning of that parable is not about what happens when people die. As I pointed out in the last post. There is no living soul apart from the body, thus nothing lives on after death. This is why I said earlier, if one knows...

You might want to read that again. The "Man" which is the dust of the earth "BECAME" a living soul. It doesn't say God put a soul into the man. It says the man became a living soul. The Man in that verse is the dust of the earth. That dust became a living soul. The word became, means to change...

You keep posting the same passages. It's already been shown that aion cannot mean eternal. You can post these passages till the cows come home, that's not going to change the fact.

I said no such thing. I see why you don't understand the Scriptures.